Abortion??? anyone??

[Lagboltz]

Exactly correct Lagboltz. I have asked Pale Rider this question before and he has NEVER once responded to it...

Does he consider Abigail and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins with two heads but one body, to be two separate persons?

Does he consider Lakshi Tatma, a girl in India with one head but eight limbs, to be two separate persons?

He has never answered the question because to do so would expose the blatant hypocrisy in his ENTIRE position.

Palerider is not your usual sort of person. He will never ever change his mind in an argument even when you have undeniable proof. He will simply ignore it and try to take you on a worthless tangent.

I have dealt with him at great length on the physics of climate change and showed where he didn't understand the physics. Backed into a corner he will start lashing out personally. Finally he put me on ignore. I have a feeling he won't be back here for a while.

 

[palerider]

I am very curious Pale Rider... Do you consider Abigail and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins with two heads but one body, to be two separate persons?

Do you consider Lakshi Tatma, a girl in India with one head but eight limbs, to be two separate persons?

Abigail and Brittany each have their own drivers license....Laskhi is an individual who unfortunately absorbed and killed her siblings...their parts are supported by her body, but arms and legs are not people.

 

[palerider]

In cases of rape, the female is not at fault, hence cannot be held responsible, as you would hold her responsible.

The child is not at fault either...and yet you would support killing it for the crime of its father?

 

[palerider]

You are incorrect here as well Pale Rider. Person does not mean what you say it means. Here is the OFFICIAL legal US Congress definition listed from the US Code:

Human Being - Person - Individual Defined

[1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 113-100. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person. Sorry but you are just plain wrong, yet again.

So according to the United States OWN definition, an unborn can NEVER be defined as a person because it has not been BORN YET. Sorry but you are just PLAIN WRONG, yet again.

You just love to fail, don't you? Look at the US code prior to the Roe decision...it clearly stated, the same as the legal dictionary that a person was a human being...the US code was changed after roe in order to support a flawed and illegal court decision...if the decision were valid, the code would not have needed to be changed.

Sorry guy, but I am right and am always right regarding this topic....it was the most reprehensible decision the court ever made and has resulted in more deaths than all of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries together...altering the US code to support the decision only smears blood across the hands of congress as well.

 

[palerider]

Thanking you on this one. I kind of gave up when I realized that no amount of sense I posted back was going to get through, and it was just causing me to grow angry and annoyed. I'm glad you could help shed some light :]

Wasted thanks...he was wrong....The US code was altered to support the court's decision...had the decision been valid, or legal, the code would not have needed altering.

 

[palerider]

Exactly correct Lagboltz. I have asked Pale Rider this question before and he has NEVER once responded to it...

Does he consider Abigail and Brittany Hensel, conjoined twins with two heads but one body, to be two separate persons?[/qiupte]

As I have already said...they each have separate identification papers and drivers licenses...clearly they are two individuals.

Does he consider Lakshi Tatma, a girl in India with one head but eight limbs, to be two separate persons?

She is a person who unfortunately absorbed most of her siblings body during development...arms and legs are not people...they are parts.

He has never answered the question because to do so would expose the blatant hypocrisy in his ENTIRE position.

Bitter over losing much? There is no hypocrisy within my position or my argument...you just don't like having the weakness of your argument pointed out.

 

[samsara15]

You just love to fail, don't you? Look at the US code prior to the Roe decision...it clearly stated, the same as the legal dictionary that a person was a human being...the US code was changed after roe in order to support a flawed and illegal court decision...if the decision were valid, the code would not have needed to be changed.

Sorry guy, but I am right and am always right regarding this topic....it was the most reprehensible decision the court ever made and has resulted in more deaths than all of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries together...altering the US code to support the decision only smears blood across the hands of congress as well.

You ar wrong and have always been wrong, Pale, except in your imagination. A one trick pony.

 

[Lagboltz]

You ar wrong and have always been wrong, Pale, except in your imagination. A one trick pony.

As I said to Fedor50,
Palerider will never ever change his mind in an argument even when you have undeniable proof. He will simply ignore it and try to take you on a worthless tangent or repeat the same thing over and over as though repetition is a good argument.

 

[palerider]

You ar wrong and have always been wrong, Pale, except in your imagination. A one trick pony.

Sorry, but the codes say what the codes say and you can never change the fact that the US code was altered to support a court decision...There is no rational argument in support of abortion if the mother's life is not in imminent danger, but feel free to try.

As to being a one trick pony...clearly you have not read my posts on political philosophy or other topics...but then you are one of those who operate from a position of emotion aren't you...never bother to actually research a thing before you make a pronouncement on it...

 

[palerider]

lagboltz,...all one need do to convince me is provide hard evidence...a thing that you are not familiar with and the reason you can't convince me that the emperors clothes are beautiful to behold..

 

[fedor50]

You just love to fail, don't you? Look at the US code prior to the Roe decision...it clearly stated, the same as the legal dictionary that a person was a human being...the US code was changed after roe in order to support a flawed and illegal court decision...if the decision were valid, the code would not have needed to be changed.

Sorry guy, but I am right and am always right regarding this topic....it was the most reprehensible decision the court ever made and has resulted in more deaths than all of the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries together...altering the US code to support the decision only smears blood across the hands of congress as well.

A zygote has human DNA, so it's a human zygote; like a sperm has human DNA, so it's a human sperm. It isn't an 'individual' because it's not biologically capable of existing independently from the mother.

Sorry, looks like you are wrong again

 

[fedor50]

lagboltz,...all one need do to convince me is provide hard evidence...a thing that you are not familiar with and the reason you can't convince me that the emperors clothes are beautiful to behold..

No convincing necessary. You still have yet to rebuttal these FACTS:

• A zygote is not capable of biological independence - one of the qualifiers for being an organism.
• A zygote is not the end product of the reproductive cycle; as this is the process by which a new individual/organism is created, this implies that a zygote is not yet an organism.
• A zygote is united ('formed into a single whole') with the mother, both semantically (dictionary link to 'placenta') and biologically (microchimerism).
• A zygote is described as 'developing into' an organism, which strongly implies it is not yet one.

These are ALL hard evidence and bullet-proof FACTS that you have yet to successfully rebuttal.

 

[fedor50]

Wasted thanks...he was wrong....The US code was altered to support the court's decision...had the decision been valid, or legal, the code would not have needed altering.

Individual:Biology .a.a single organism capable of independent existence.

Viability: b.(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

Just to pre-empt the standard responses:

1. Note that my first definition is in the 'biology' section. As such, it's talking about biological independence, not social/emotional/financial etc. To suggest otherwise would be the case is to suggest that there are very few 'individuals' in this world; clearly this is not the case.

2. Also given the biological nature of the definition, it doesn't make sense to read 'exist' as simply 'all the atoms would still be present' - for one thing, this could apply to anything, so the phrase would be grammatically redundant and pointless to include in a definition (like defining a wall as 'a structure that is red if it's covered in red paint'). As we are discussing biology, to biologically exist is to have life or animation; live..

A ZEF is not an individual until viability.

 

[fedor50]

Abigail and Brittany each have their own drivers license....Laskhi is an individual who unfortunately absorbed and killed her siblings...their parts are supported by her body, but arms and legs are not people.

Wrong Answer!

Allow me to answer the question FOR YOU:

The difference is that Abigail and Brittany have two separate self-awarenesses, feel pain separately from each other and, as such, are considered to be two different people. Lakshmi, on the other hand, only has one self-awareness and is therefore considered to be one person. Extrapolate that back further and you'll see that something without any self-awareness is not considered a person at all.

Number of self-awarenesses = number of people.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Lagboltz]

...Laskhi is an individual who unfortunately absorbed and killed her siblings...their parts are supported by her body, but arms and legs are not people.

Good heavens. That is one of the most convoluted things I've ever seen from you. (Warning: hyperbole and sarcasm alert.) Since Laskhi "killed" her sibling she should be tried for murder. That would be the first prenatal murder ever brought to trial.